Click image to order

Merchants of spin part 2: Now the film’s director has emailed me!

Following Naomi Oreskes message last week, now I’ve had the film director emailing me!

>Director Robert Kenner > wrote:> > Dear Roger,> > People who mislead the public on climate change should not be on TV. Period.> > That’s one big reason why I produced Merchants of Doubt, a film that lays> bare the greedy, shameful world of climate denial and the journalists who> broadcast it. That’s also why, right now, we’re launching a people-powered> national campaign that could keep climate deniers out of the news for good.> > Merchants of Doubt premieres in U.S. theaters today, and it will invite> thousands of energized viewers to sign this petition and join our campaign.> Let’s lead the charge!> > Join me to tell TV network and cable news directors: Stop booking “merchants> of doubt” on your programs immediately.

My response:

Dear Robert,

Surely the best way to defeat a bad scientific argument is to engage with it and
show how it is in error. Denying people free speech in the media only fuels the
flames.
There seem to be remarkably few scientists from the warm side of the debate
willing to engage with prominent skeptics. Bring it on, I’m happy to discuss the
physics of the enhanced greenhouse effect with anyone you care to put up. The
problem for them is that the Stefan Boltzmann equation which was employed by
goody and Young in 1964 only applies to vacuum’s at absolute zero. i.e. space.
Applying it to the troposphere is a fundamental error. That error has been
repeated ever since in every climate model. That’s why they are so far in error.

Like this:

Related

The US government controlled news, NPR, was giving an infomercial to this creep last week. I noticed that he had the god father of the current cliamte obsession, James Hansen, portrayed as a selfless wall flower reluctant to enter the public square.
No mention of the millions he has earned in speaking fees, “awards” from lefty enviro groups, or his debut performance, the stage managed hot room testimony in the Senate in 1988.
This director is no different than any other propagandist and clearly owes much to the legacy of Leni Riefenstahl.

You should ask whether “People who mislead the public on climate change should not be on TV” includes people who exaggerate the extent of climate change and its effects, and whether, if this less one-sided blacklist turned out to include himself and Oreskes, he would happily sell his video camera.

Heisenberg dared to be a skeptic of Newton and even Einstein when he composed his uncertainty principle. When all of science believed the universe was rolling out a pattern of events already predetermined since t=0 was abolished by one voice of opposition. Seems to me the AGW cadres are so scared of their own folly that they must silence logical and devastating scientific evidence which tells a very different story.

Yet more comms from the alarmosphere:
========================================

On 12 March 2015 at 14:03 “Brant Olson” wrote:

Join us!
Dear Roger,

“Orwellian.” That’s how one climate scientist described an explosive new report that Florida stopped environmental regulators from using the terms “climate change” and “global warming.”

The report has sparked massive media attention, and has inspired local activists to call for an investigation.

Governor Rick Scott denies the reports, but if we keep the national spotlight shining on Florida, we can stop him from blocking an investigation and hold him accountable for any wrongdoing.

Add your name to support the call for an investigation into Florida’s climate censorship.

According to the report by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, four former employees at Florida’s Department for Environmental Protection (DEP) were told they should not use the terms “climate change,” “global warming,” or “sustainability” in communications or public reports. The unwritten policy was reportedly implemented in 2011, after Gov. Scott — an outspoken climate denier — took office and appointed a new DEP director.

If we don’t act now, this “unwritten policy” could have grave consequences for Floridians. Scientists consider Florida one of the most vulnerable states to the impacts of climate change in the U.S. In fact, scientists predict that sea level rise could wipe out 30 percent of the state’s beaches by 2100.

The Inspector General for the DEP has the authority and independence to investigate Gov. Scott’s conduct — and to show climate-denying politicians across the country that they’ll be held accountable for censorship.

Don’t let climate deniers put Florida in danger. Sign your name now.

Factually yours,

Brant, Sylvie, Emily, and the rest of the team
=======================================================

My response:

Dear Brant,

May I draw your attention to the attached graphic, which shows the mean sea level at Panascola FLA since 1922. As you can see from my annotation in red, the average annual rise is around 2.1mm/yr. At this rate, mean sea level rise between now and the end of the century would amount to around 6 inches. Would you agree with me that your statement that “In fact, scientists predict that sea level rise could wipe out 30 percent of the state’s beaches by 2100.” may be unduly alarmist? I think you’ll find that statements from “scientists” such as the one you highlight, are a large part of the reason Rick Scott is unconvinced by the claims bandied around by environmental activists.

I note there is no reference to exactly which “scientists” make the statement you highlight in your email. Chain of evidence requires stated sources to have credibility.

All ideologues need enemies they can focus on, demonize to deligitimize and publicly destroy with strawman arguments. Fulminating against an unidentifiable foe has no persuasive power. The alarmists cannot “win” if nobody else plays.

Is the eco-green leadership aware they must create the skeptic threat to rally the troops? Does McKibben know he needs the Koch brothers to justify the lack of public interest in his cause? I bet he does now that the self-aggrandizement through CAGW of Gore, Hansen and Pachauri are so obvious. If you can’t inspire through imitation, you have to do it through the fear of the Other.

When you claim only 3% of educated men and women disagree with you, but are responsible for about 50% of the American public opinion AND more than 60% of political action, you have a formidable foe, indeed.

We are in a remarkable time where the cowards are running around, frantically seeking nonexistent bullies.

“People who mislead the public on climate change should not be on TV. Period.”

That just about covers everyone on TV today,(especially Director Robert Kenner) and I tend to agree that their alarmist and ridiculous statements dont need to be on TV. so maybe it should be labeled fiction instead of taken seriously.

Mr. Kenner sounds like a convert to the “Fanaticism Of The Apocalypse” and is intent on preventing those who are not in ideological agreement with his “Fanaticism Of The Apocalypse” to participate in free speech. Too bad Mr. Kenner wasn’t around to prevent the free speech of those who denied that the “Population Bomb” would cause the death of 100s of billions of American and Europe lives via starvation in the 1980s. If only Mr. Kenner could have been there to promote spending trillions of $ to prevent the “Population Bomb” from destroying human civilization. He should make a movie about the greatness of such all knowing luminaries like Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren and forced children to accept the truth of the “Population Bomb”. I’m so sad reflecting on what could have been if great men like Mr. Kenner could have saved us back then.

“People who mislead the public on climate change should not be on TV. Period.”
I almost agree. For complete accuracy, make it:
“People who mislead the public with climate change should not be on TV. Period.”

Also, regular readers (the male ones, at least) may have missed Naomi Klein on “Woman’s Hour” yesterday, oozing exactly what you’d expect her to ooze. It’s on the iplayer, for the true masochist.

From Steven Goddard:
‘The movie started out with James Hansen claiming that Venus was 600 degrees because of 97% CO2 which was trapping heat.

Apparently Hansen can’t do his own basic math.

Hansen says that each doubling of CO2 causes a 3C temperature increase. Venus has 97% (0.97 mole fraction) CO2. In order to get to 97% on Earth, we would require less than 13 doublings. That would raise temperatures by about 35 degrees, using Hansen’s own exaggerated theory. Nowhere near 600 degrees.’

‘Ukip blogger ‘Rog Tallbloke’ has revealed that Kenner emailed him, exhorting him to ‘spread the message’: “Dear Roger, People who mislead the public on climate change should not be on TV. Period,” the director said.’
but…
‘Merchants of Doubt, a new documentary film designed to paint climate change sceptics as “pundits for hire” in the pay of big business, has tanked at the box office.’

Roger, there are lots of issues with the science of climate change, which makes it odd that you choose

“The problem for them is that the Stefan Boltzmann equation which was employed by
goody and Young in 1964 only applies to vacuum’s at absolute zero. i.e. space.”

as your key issue.

Yes, the original form of the equation was for blackbody radiation from an object heading into zero K surroundings. But today, the equations for radiation transfer commonly involve gray bodies radiating to each other or a graybody with non-zero K surroundings. This is not only found in climate science, but physics (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html) and engineering (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html). So you are pretty much arguing that every physicist and every engineer is committing a fundamental error — even though they consistently get the right results with these equations.

Again, there may some challenges applying the heat transfer equations to gases in the atmosphere. But the equations themselves (ie NOT the original SB equation but the more sophisticated versions which deal with nonzero surroundings) are not something that anyone really questions.

Let me ask you — what SPECIFICALLY in Goody & Young do you object to? Which specific equation or value do you think is in error?

Yes, the original form of the equation [ Stefan-Bolzmann] was for blackbody radiation from an object heading into zero K surroundings.

The problem with using the S-B equation is the place the emission is from not the space into which it goes.
BB radiation is from a surface, not a volume. It must be at one temperature. The atmosphere is not a BB.
There is no such thing as a gray body. It is BB not is not.

Tim F. 3:32am: “..the original form of the equation was for blackbody radiation from an object heading into zero K surroundings.”

Wondered about that. Far as I can tell quickly, the experimenters in late 1890s used room temperature at 1atm. in their location to develop the famous Planck eqn. for specific intensity of an emitted “ray” at a freq. and a temperature. They used a chamber cavity that could be extremely cooled and extremely warmed developing BB radiation exiting the small hole into a box (to reduce drafts) that held some conditioning mirrors and a thermopile connected to a galvanometer. See for example Fig. 1 p. 340 in Rubens & Kurlbaum Astrophysical J. 1898:

Experimentally determining Planck’s constant did need a vacuum apparatus to tease out the extremely small number sought. They did pretty well in those days, the modern value is only slightly different.

This shows a reason my room temperature 1atm. in my location IR thermometer readout is so close to the mercury and digital thermometer reading for both solid surfaces and volumes of water.

Roger Clague says: “BB radiation is from a surface, not a volume. ”
The original “blackbody” was an opening to a cavity. The radiation was coming from the volume, simply passing through a non-physical surface.

“There is no such thing as a gray body. It is BB not is not.”
I would say there is no true BB. All radiation only approaches BB. Cavities are quite good. Other surfaces less so. Some are close to “gray” with a constant emissivity over all wavelengths. Others are “colored” with differing emissivities at different wavelengths (or example the GHGs, which emit/absorb well in some wavelengths and poorly in others).

It any case, it is perfectly possible to theoretically break the atmosphere into small chunks (say 1m x 1m x 1m), each of which has a single temperature. Then calculate the absorption and emission from each element. Then we have a specific temperature and specific surfaces as you desire. The emission & absorption and transmission of IR from each can be used to calculate net energy transfers.